A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

[Ally]

Only limited minds and thinking will describe such spouses as prostitutes, to say a married woman who chooes to stay with her husband for benefits is a prostitute is something out of the realm of sanity, making her no different than a woman at the streets every time with someone else.

Marriage is not only about sex, only limited minds wil think so.

No, in some cases it's about financial security as well. But it's interesting you think a "wife" choosing to stay and sleep with a dude for financial security is any way different than a prostitute. Or a man for that matter. If you're exchanging sex for financial security and nothing else, you're a prostitute. The "sanctity of holy marriage" doesn't change the facts or the act.

"Most psychologists believe the long-term psychological harm resulting from prostitution is comparable to that from rape or domestic violence.

And at one point most psychologists believed that women suffered from hysteria and that pregnancy could cure it and encouraged women to get knocked up to "cure" their emotional issues. Spare me from what most psychologists have to think about any social issue, because most psychologists are as blinkered by "morality" impairment as you are.

Beyond the Streets highlights that 76% of those involved in prostitution experience some form of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

And how much of that is because they are considered criminals, looked down on and spat upon by high minded thinkers like you? How much of the PTSD is because of how they are treated, and not because of the act? In short, how much of that trauma is inflicted upon them by societal views of them, and their inability to seek remedies that are available to "upstanding citizens"?

How much of the PTSD is CAUSED by the fact that people like you look down on it, criminalize and ostracize them from society?

In short, how much of that is caused by you? And people like you? You know, the people who judge them as "bad".

[The Baron]

Prostitution is the exchange of sex for payment. By that definition, many spouses/partners I know, are nothing but prostitutes because they married/date
their partners purely for the paycheck.

Only limited minds and thinking will describe such spouses as prostitutes, to say a married woman who chooes to stay with her husband for benefits is a prostitute is something out of the realm of sanity, making her no different than a woman at the streets every time with someone else.

Marriage is not only about sex, only limited minds wil think so.

I can't give you a "good" or "bad" because it is neither. It is an act that depends on the context.

You can't, but I can give you this, prostitution is BAD


"Most psychologists believe the long-term psychological harm resulting from prostitution is comparable to that from rape or domestic violence. Beyond the Streets highlights that 76% of those involved in prostitution experience some form of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The core experiences of violence and psychological trauma associated with prostitution are disempowerment and disconnection with others. Internally these experiences often cause a ‘split’ between the mind, body and spirit."



"Individuals involved in prostitution often develop complex coping mechanisms and rituals to minimise their pain and brokenness:

• Dissociative disorders (e.g. disconnection, distancing)
• Anxiety disorders (e.g. fixation, memory loss, panic attacks, flashbacks)
• Substance abuse (leading to long term addiction and mental illness).
• Sleeping disorders – oversleeping insomnia
• Depression
• Self harm
• Eating Disorders
• Obsessive compulsive behaviour"

https://www.streetlight.uk.com/the-facts/


Read this site Ally, and tell me if you see those envolved in this program have the same sexism that I have.

And we haven't even talked about sexually transmitted diseases, suicide cases or social and religious view of prostitution.

Some prostitutes have ruled empires by the men they ruled.

And you think this is something good or great ?!
It is sad to see the intellectual regression we have reached.




The Baron

[Ally]

One question to you Ally,

Do you think Prostitution is good or bad?

D
So let's hear you here Ally, is Prostitution good or bad?!



The Baron

You're going to get a maze of words, because it is the purview of limited minds and thinking to believe that complicated states of human existence can be neatly slotted into categories of "wholly good" or "wholly bad". There are very few areas which that actually applies.

Prostitution is neither good nor bad. It, like MANY things in life, depends on circumstance. Is the prostitute an adult? Is she willing or is she trafficked? Prostitution is the exchange of sex for payment. By that definition, many spouses/partners I know, are nothing but prostitutes because they married/date their partners purely for the paycheck. But of course, we don't look at it that way, because we give a pass to long term sex for cash arrangements that aren't given to those who have a more diverse sexual portfolio. I can't give you a "good" or "bad" because it is neither. It is an act that depends on the context. Some prostitutes have ruled empires by the men they ruled.

Just like drug use, and many other "criminal" and non-criminal activities. Like marriage. Like religion. It entirely depends on the context that surrounds these concepts as to whether it is good or bad.

So no, you will not get a simple answer to a complicated question from me. Because I, unlike many, am not simple-minded.

[PaulB]

Because you are, but you are not feeling this






So you admit it, there IS doubt






Certain: (Cambridge Dictionary)

having no doubt or knowing exactly that something is true, or known to be true, correct, exact, or effective


See!

Proved you contradicting yourself again, you want to have your cake and you want to eat it! You want to have doubt and certainty at the same time!

Unbelievable!

When are you going to realise that this pedanty is not helping you?!


There is doubt, and I will not describe those women as prostitutes as long as there is doubt.



The Baron

When are you going to realise that your ignorance isn't helping you? Much of the past is constructed on probabilities based on the available evidence, which is why it changes as new evidence is found or existing evidence is reinterpreted. It is not based on the sort of irrefutable proof that you and Harry want, whatever that is. I can be certain that the evidence leads to the conclusion that Nichols was a prostitute and engaged in prostitution, but I can also acknowledge that irrefutable proof is lacking. If understanding that is beyond you, I'm sorry.

[PaulB]

The claims now tend to suggest I am defending Rubenhold.I haven't read her book,but I have seen numerous references to it.Most appear to be swayed by her arguements,but I would tend to say she relies on hearsay as much as those who oppose her.I am not taking sides.
Historically or otherwise the principle of 'Innocent unless proven guilty' applies,but for those who claim the ripper victims were prostitutes,the opposite is asked,or the principle is avoided.
It is not up to me Paul to provide an explanation of why Nichols ended up in Bucks Row.You might as well ask how the thousands of homeless people ended up where they did,I do not know,but if you are suggesting it was for purpose of prostitution, the onus is on you to supply that proof.You cannot.

Nothing you have said in this post is true, Harry. As far as I know, nobody has suggested that you are defending Rubenhold. I haven't. All I have said is that Rubenhold says there is no evidence that the victims were prostitutes, whereas both you and I know that there is. I have neither avoided nor have I suggested that "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply, I have said repeatedly that what you consider to be proof doesn't exist and we are therefore forced to rely on the very best interpretation of the evidence. The purpose of this exercise is to make the very best use of the available evidence to paint a picture of what happened that night, and most people seem satisfied that the evidence leads to the conclusion that Nichols was engaged in prostitution. If you want to challenge that, then it is up to you to show why this construction placed on the evidence is wrong. You are challenging the conclusion, Harry, so I am at liberty to ask for your alternative interpretation of the evidence.

[Trevor Marriott]

The claims now tend to suggest I am defending Rubenhold.I haven't read her book,but I have seen numerous references to it.Most appear to be swayed by her arguements,but I would tend to say she relies on hearsay as much as those who oppose her.I am not taking sides.
Historically or otherwise the principle of 'Innocent unless proven guilty' applies,but for those who claim the ripper victims were prostitutes,the opposite is asked,or the principle is avoided.
It is not up to me Paul to provide an explanation of why Nichols ended up in Bucks Row.You might as well ask how the thousands of homeless people ended up where they did,I do not know,but if you are suggesting it was for purpose of prostitution, the onus is on you to supply that proof.You cannot.

Harry and Baron

See below,

I know these have been posted many times but I feel the need to link all the facts and the evidence in one place to show to you both that their is clear and irrefutable evidence that these women engaged in prostitution.

Whether at the time of their deaths they were activley engagaed in prostitution may be contentious but their actions before their death certainly allow proper inferences to be made to suggest that at the time they were actively engaged in prostitution

Elizabeth Stride
Stride was arrested and charged for being drunk and disorderly and 'soliciting prostitution' in the Commercial Road in November 1884, and that she was sentenced to seven days hard labour.
The Evening News of 1 October 1888 reported that the victim had been identified as 'Elizabeth Stride, familiarly known as Long Lizzie, who had been living at a common lodging-house, No. 32 Flower and Dean-street, and who had plied her painful trade in the neighbourhood.'

Mary Kelly
Her official death certificate clearly shows her occupation as prostitute.

Polly Nichols
There is still in existence in the official police files contained in The National Archives a police descriptive file on Nichols from 1888, this clearly shows her being recorded as a prostitute.
Inspector Helson of the Bethnal Green police had recorded in his report of 7 September 1888 that it had come to the attention of William Nichols in 1882 that Polly 'was living the life of a prostitute' which is why he stopped paying her maintenance.
Chief Insp Swanson came to describe Polly's 1882 behaviour in his report of 19 October 1888 he described her as 'leading an immoral life',
Furthermore, we have it that Inspector Abberline (in a report dated 19 September 1888) that 'Bucks Row is a narrow quiet thoroughfare frequented by prostitutes for immoral purposes at night'.

Annie Chapman
Again as with Nichols, there is an official police descriptive file on Chapman which clearly shows her recorded as a prostitute.
Extract from a Report by Inspector Chandler, Commercial Street Police Station, 8th September 1888:
‘The woman [Annie Chapman] has been identified by Timothy Donovan “Deputy” Crossingham’s Lodging House 35 Dorset Street, Spitalfields, who states he had known her about 26 months, as a prostitute...’
Sworn inquest testimony from a witness John Evans
1.35 a.m. Annie returns to the lodging house again. She is eating a baked potato. John Evans, the night watchman, has been sent to collect her bed money. "I haven't sufficient money for my bed," she tells him, "but don't let it. I shall not be long before I'm in." He says to her "You can find money for your beer and you can't find money for your bed." She steps out of the office and says. "Never mind, I'll soon be back." Goes out never seen alive again.
Again her actions show a propensity towards prostitution prior to her being found dead.

Catherine Eddowes
Is there any evidence to suggest Eddowes had ever engaged in prostitution, or at the time of her death was engaged in prostitution. Inspector McWilliam of the City of London police stated that Thomas Conway her ex had been compelled to leave her 'on account of her drunken and immoral habits' which could be construed as prostitution.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

...but the fact is there were thousands of women who were unfortunates and homeless(for those who wish to use statistics) who abstained from prostituting themselves.All or some of the five could have been among them.This obsession unfortuntes had to be prostitutes is akin to those who insisst a person who finds a body is automatically a suspect.Utterly futile reasoning.


.'

It's certainly an interesting topic on its own- whether describing a woman (or her describing herself) as 'an unfortunate,' was something that was recognised as confirming that she engaged in prostitution to earn her living at times.
This was the subject of the paper linked to earlier in the thread by poster Linotte: JACK THE RIPPER’S “UNFORTUNATE” VICTIMS: PROSTITUTION AS VAGRANCY, 1888-1900 by Katherine Crooks

[The Baron]

you are trying to show me making contradictory statements.

Because you are, but you are not feeling this

I could not state beyond doubt that the women were prostitutes

So you admit it, there IS doubt

on the best interpretation or construction of the evidence - I think it is certain that they were

Certain: (Cambridge Dictionary)

having no doubt or knowing exactly that something is true, or known to be true, correct, exact, or effective


See!

Proved you contradicting yourself again, you want to have your cake and you want to eat it! You want to have doubt and certainty at the same time!

Unbelievable!

When are you going to realise that this pedanty is not helping you?!


There is doubt, and I will not describe those women as prostitutes as long as there is doubt.



The Baron

[PaulB]

You can't have your cake and eat it Paul


(We are not saying the women were prostitutes but historically we have to accept that the women were prostitute!)





The Baron

Don't be silly, Baron, of course I can personally conclude that the evidence shows the five to have been prostitutes, but at the same time acknowledge that the sort of irrefutable proof you and Harry want doesn't exist.

[harry]

The claims now tend to suggest I am defending Rubenhold.I haven't read her book,but I have seen numerous references to it.Most appear to be swayed by her arguements,but I would tend to say she relies on hearsay as much as those who oppose her.I am not taking sides.
Historically or otherwise the principle of 'Innocent unless proven guilty' applies,but for those who claim the ripper victims were prostitutes,the opposite is asked,or the principle is avoided.
It is not up to me Paul to provide an explanation of why Nichols ended up in Bucks Row.You might as well ask how the thousands of homeless people ended up where they did,I do not know,but if you are suggesting it was for purpose of prostitution, the onus is on you to supply that proof.You cannot.

[The Baron]

One question to you Ally,

Do you think Prostitution is good or bad?

Don't take me in a maze of words, I want a clear and cut answer, is it good or bad?

And please don't try the 'survive' bit here, one may kill to survive, one may steal to survive, one may cheat to survive, but that doesn't change the fact the stealing and killing and cheating are bad things.

So let's hear you here Ally, is Prostitution good or bad?!



The Baron

[Ally]

Actually Ally, you are the one who will fail to show where I said that the people who committed crimes no matter what, were bad.


I said exactly:

>>Prostitution is a criminal offence, criminal offences are Bad!

Aww, there he goes parsing out words to try and squirm his way out of the trap he's argued himself into.

;And yes I will stick to my statement, criminal offences and breakings the law are bad


I don't even feel I need to defend this, you disagree, do what you want, that will not change my stand.


The Baron

Well, I'm glad you consider homosexuals bad, and Harriet Tubman and pretty much every person on this board bad, because everyone's broken the law and committed a criminal offense.

There are loads of stupid laws on the book, that make for a lot of stupid crimes, and saying that criminal offenses and breaking the law is bad, no matter the reason, is basically proof that you are not capable of arguing the subject rationally or with any degree of logic.

But of course, we knew that already. Just like we all know that they were prostitutes. Because we aren't mentally deficient and irrational.

[The Baron]

You can't have your cake and eat it Paul


(We are not saying the women were prostitutes but historically we have to accept that the women were prostitute!)





The Baron

[PaulB]

Turning a blind eye:


Ally:

>>Four of the five were definitely prostitutes



And forgetting:


Paul:

>>So, I'd say that historically, yes, we have to accept that the ripper's victims were prostitutes.


And this 'were' above is your emphasis!


What is it Paul?!
Are you sure everything is ok at the other side of "The Five" ?!



The Baron

I assume you are trying to make a point, Baron. Probably you are trying to be very clever and by taking my comment in post 287 (I think) out of context and ignoring the word "historically" you are trying to show me making contradictory statements. However, if that is the case, I can only suppose that either you didn't read that post correctly or you failed to understand it, for I was at pains to point out that the kind of irrefutable proof that you and Harry demand doesn't exist, therefore the historian, unfettered by the policeman's need to present evidence before a judge and jury, is free to build an argument on the best interpretation of the evidence that they can. I clearly stated that being a cautious soul, I could not state beyond doubt that the women were prostitutes, but historically - that is to say, on the best interpretation or construction of the evidence - I think it is certain that they were.

It is largely academic anyway. What I believe the victims were or weren't is irrelevant, what matters is Hallie Rubenhold's assertion that there is no evidence that they were. You can choose to believe the accumulated evidence doesn't prove that they were prostitutes, and I wouldn't disagree with you if I believed that the proof you want existed, but even you and Harry have to acknowledge that that evidence exists.

As for Ally, I'm sure she will answer for herself, but I suspect that it never occurred to her that she'd have to explain to someone that the past is about interpretation and perspective, not always irrefutable facts. That's usually a given.

[The Baron]

whether you wanted to stick to your statement that people who committed crimes, no matter what the crimes were, were bad.

Actually Ally, you are the one who will fail to show where I said that the people who committed crimes no matter what, were bad.


I said exactly:

>>Prostitution is a criminal offence, criminal offences are Bad!


And yes I will stick to my statement, criminal offences and breakings the law are bad


I don't even feel I need to defend this, you disagree, do what you want, that will not change my stand.



The Baron